THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. P-19-3940. March 6, 2019.][Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4103-P]
MARY GRACE P. CARRASCO-MUSTARD, petitioner, vs.RENON TOMAS, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 38, SAN JOSE CITY, NUEVA ECIJA, respondent.
[A.M. No. P-19-3941. March 6, 2019.][Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 14-4338-P]
IN RE: ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST MARY GRACE P. CARRASCO-MUSTARD, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT; JONATHAN SANTOS, LEGAL RESEARCHER; AND RENON TOMAS, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 38, SAN JOSE CITY, NUEVA ECIJA.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated March 6, 2019, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-19-3940 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4103-P] (Mary Grace P. Carrasco-Mustard vs. Renon Tomas, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Br. 38, San Jose City, Nueva Ecija); and A.M. No. P-19-3941 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 14-4338-P] (In Re: Anonymous Complaint against Mary Grace P. Carrasco-Mustard, Branch Clerk of Court; Jonathan Santos, Legal Researcher; and Renon Tomas, Court Stenographer III, all of the Regional Trial Court, Br. 38, San Jose City, Nueva Ecija). — The Court resolves to RE-DOCKET the instant administrative complaint as a regular administrative matter.
The Facts
OCA I.P.I. No. 14-4338-P
In an anonymous letter addressed to Executive Judge Cynthia Martinez-Florendo (Judge Florendo), Regional Trial Court (RTC), San Jose City, Nueva Ecija, it was alleged that Atty. Mary Grace P. Carrasco-Mustard (Atty. Mustard), the Branch Clerk of Court, is maintaining immoral relationships with Jonathan Santos (Santos), Legal Researcher, and Renon Tomas (Tomas), Court Stenographer, all of the RTC, Branch 38, San Jose City, Nueva Ecija. All three (3) respondents are married to their respective spouses. It was further alleged in the letter that their "love triangle" and scandalous behavior greatly alarmed the court employees in San Jose City, Nueva Ecija. 1
During the investigation conducted by Judge Florendo, Tomas admitted that he and Atty. Mustard had an illicit affair from December 2011 to July 2012. He described their relationship as that of a husband and wife. Tomas also disclosed that he had confessed about the affair to his wife when it ended because it was destroying his family. He narrated that there was an incident that happened between him and Santos because the latter kissed Atty. Mustard in his presence. Tomas added that he received gifts from Atty. Mustard, which his wife asked him to return after finding out about their affair. 2
For her part, Atty. Mustard denied the allegations in the anonymous complaint. She explained that most of the allegations against her arose because of a grudge against her, being a strict branch clerk of court. At the start, she had a good professional relationship with Tomas, who acted as bridge to the other staff members. However, she started to ignore Tomas when he professed his love and said that he was willing to leave his family for her. Although Atty. Mustard admitted giving gifts to Tomas, she asserted that she merely wanted to share her blessings. Moreover, she denied having an affair with Santos. 3
On the other hand, Santos denied ever going out with Atty. Mustard during office hours. He argued that going out of the office building in succession does not mean that they went to the same place. He insisted that the listings in the security guards' logbooks were done with malice since they are not chronologically arranged. 4
In the Court's Resolution 5 dated November 26, 2014, the matter was referred to the Executive Judge of the RTC of Cabanatuan City, Nueva Ecija, for investigation, report and recommendation as the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that a full-blown investigation be conducted where the parties can adduce their own respective evidence.
In his Investigation Report and Recommendation 6 dated March 31, 2015, Executive Judge Primo G. Sio, Jr. (Judge Sio) concluded that respondents engaged in intimate and illicit affairs, and recommended that they be found guilty of immorality. He gave great weight and credence to the admission made by Tomas, noting that the latter knew that said admission could cause him his job. He found Tomas' answers were forthright, spontaneous and candid. Moreover, his testimony was corroborated by the other staff members.
Furthermore, Judge Sio found Atty. Mustard's resignation from her post in 2013 during the pendency of her investigation as a sign of guilt akin to flight in criminal cases. He reasoned that an innocent person would have opted to stand her ground, present evidence to clear her name, and put to rest all the issues that tarnished her reputation. However, Atty. Mustard opted to leave without presenting evidence that will restore her honor and exculpate her from liability. 7
With regard to Santos, Judge Sio declared that his behavior during his testimony is consistent with a lying witness and are badges of falsehood. Santos could not answer simple questions in a candid, forthright and spontaneous manner. His credibility is put into serious doubt when he stammers, holds back answers on some points but exaggerates on details if it is favorable to him. 8
Accordingly, Judge Sio concluded that both Tomas and Santos should be held administratively liable for immorality. He recommended the penalty of suspension for six (6) months be imposed on Santos, and three (3) months on Tomas by reason of the existence of extenuating circumstances, his admission and remorse without which the offense charged may not have been proved. 9
OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4103-P
Atty. Mustard filed a complaint against Tomas for gross discourtesy. She narrated that on February 28, 2013, Tomas followed and walked behind her from the building entrance up to her desk. She complained to Presiding Judge Loreto Alog, Jr. (Judge Alog) that Tomas' behavior made her feel harassed and intimidated. Hence, Judge Alog called the parties to a meeting in his chambers on April 15, 2013. At the meeting, Tomas admitted that he just wanted to annoy Atty. Mustard. With this revelation, Atty. Mustard felt all the more humiliated and harassed. 10 In his Comment, Tomas confessed that he had a relationship with Atty. Mustard. 11
The OCA recommended that Judge Florendo conduct an investigation, report and recommendation on the instant complaint, and that OCA IPI No. 13-4103-P be consolidated with OCA IPI No. 14-4338-P, which the Court approved in a Resolution 12 dated October 17, 2016.
In her Investigation Report and Recommendation 13 dated March 20, 2017, Judge Florendo agreed with the findings of Judge Sio that Atty. Mustard, Tomas and Santos are guilty of Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct classified as grave offense. She is convinced with the testimony of Mr. Tomas that "he and Mr. Santos had a tryst with Atty. Mustard." 14 She found that Tomas is an honest and God-fearing individual, except that he was dishonest to his wife at the time he had an affair with Atty. Mustard. After admitting the affair, Tomas did not justify himself, but instead asked for forgiveness. He showed remorse and admitted that his acts are not in accordance with the norms.
Judge Florendo further stated that Tomas is one of the best stenographers whose integrity was tainted by an act of immorality, which started by being a good follower and servant to Atty. Mustard, who utilized him as a driver which should not have been if only Atty. Mustard knew the limitation of her office as Clerk of Court V. Tomas voluntarily desisted from continuing such immoral act when he was no longer blinded by his emotions toward Atty. Mustard. Thus, Judge Florendo concluded that Tomas deserves to be punished but not as severe as what the law provides. 15
On the other hand, Judge Florendo doubted the credibility of Santos, who denied having had any sexual relationship with Atty. Mustard. She observed that Santos was not spontaneous in answering his questions during the investigation. 16
In view of the foregoing, Judge Florendo recommended that Tomas be meted the penalty of one (1) month suspension and Santos be meted the penalty of two (2) months suspension. However, Judge Florendo did not touch on the liability of Atty. Mustard, stating that she had resigned even before the investigation was undertaken by Judge Sio. 17
Evaluation and Recommendation of the OCA
The OCA agreed with the findings of Investigating Judges Sio and Florendo, who found conclusive evidence to prove that Atty. Mustard had illicit relationships with both Tomas and Santos. All three respondents were married with their respective spouses, and thus, should be held liable for immorality.
In its evaluation report, the OCA held:
Respondent Santos was unable to explain why he had an altercation with respondent Tomas. The rift between them was so great that it not only affected Presiding Judge Alog, Jr., "whose blood sugar rose to critical level as he tried to settle the controversy," but also the other staff members, who dreaded the fact that a commotion may ensue anytime. It was also apparent that no other disturbances followed as Mr. Tomas opted to be transferred physically to RTC Branch 39. Thus, Investigating Judge Florendo contended that respondent Atty. Mustard did indeed have illicit relationships with both respondents Tomas and Santos, stating "no other explanation can justify why Mr. Santos and Mr. Tomas had several encounters except their relationship with Atty. Mustard." 18
With regard to Atty. Mustard, the OCA explained that she can still be held administratively liable despite having resigned from service, to wit:
Investigating Judge Florendo did not touch on the administrative liability of respondent Atty. Mustard, noting that "Atty. Mustard resigned even before the investigation was undertaken by Honorable Executive Judge Primo G. Sio, Jr." However, this Office is of the opinion that respondent Atty. Mustard should still be held administratively liable for her actions. The Court has ruled in a similar case that resignation from the service does not cause the Court to lose its jurisdiction to proceed against a respondent in an administrative case. The cessation from office by virtue of an intervening resignation does not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint, for the act complained of had been committed when still in the service. Nor did such cessation from office render the case moot and academic. Indeed, the Court's jurisdiction at the time of the filing of the administrative complaint was not lost because the respondent had ceased in office during the pendency of the case. Otherwise, exacting responsibility for administrative liabilities incurred would be easily avoided or evaded. 19
Accordingly, the OCA recommended that the respondents be found guilty of immorality, and this being their first offense, a fine may be meted against them. On account of Atty. Mustard's resignation, it was recommended that she be fined in the amount of PhP60,000.00 to be deducted from her earned leave credits, if any. However, the OCA opined that Tomas' penalty should be mitigated by reason of his confession and remorse. It, likewise, recommended that Santos be meted the fine of PhP30,000.00, while a fine in the amount of PhP10,000.00 be imposed against Tomas. 20
Ruling of the Court
The Court agrees with the findings of the OCA.
The Court has firmly laid down exacting standards of morality and decency expected of those in the service of the judiciary. Their conduct, not to mention behavior, is circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility, characterized by, among other things, propriety and decorum so as to earn and keep the public's respect and confidence in the judicial service. It must be free from any whiff of impropriety, not only with respect to their duties in the judicial branch but also to their behavior outside the court as private individuals. There is no dichotomy of morality; court employees are also judged by their private morals. 21
As such, the Court has issued codes of conduct, 22 most notably A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC or the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel, in addition to the existing civil service rules under the Administrative Code and Civil Service Rules to guide court personnel in the performance of their duties and personal affairs.
Section 1, Memorandum Circular No. 1530 of the Civil Service Commission defines disgraceful and immoral conduct as a willful act that violates basic decency or morality of society. It states:
Sec. 1. Definition of Disgraceful and Immoral conduct. — Disgraceful and Immoral Conduct refers to an act which violates the basic norm or decency, morality and decorum abhorred and condemned by the society. It refers to conduct which is willful, flagrant or shameless, and which shows a moral indifference to the opinions of the good and respectable members of the community.
Disgraceful and immoral conduct may be committed in a scandalous or discreet manner, within or out of the workplace. A complaint may be brought or initiated by the disciplining authority or any person against the parties involved.
According to Section 46 (B.3), Rule 10 of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS), disgraceful and immoral conduct is a grave offense which is punishable by suspension from the service for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense. 23 Considering that this is the first offense committed by the respondents, a fine may be meted against them.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondents Branch Clerk of Court Mary Grace P. Carrasco-Mustard, Legal Researcher Jonathan Santos and Stenographer III Renon Tomas, all of the Regional Trial Court of San Jose City, Nueva Ecija, Branch 38, GUILTY of immorality, and the penalty of FINE is hereby imposed as follows: PhP40,000.00 for respondent Branch Clerk of Court Mary Grace P. Carrasco-Mustard; PhP20,000.00 for Legal Researcher Jonathan Santos; and PhP10,000.00 for respondent Stenographer III Renon Tomas, with STERN WARNING that a commission of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED." (Carandang, J., designated as additional Member per Special Order No. 2624 dated November 28, 2018.)
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo (OCA I.P.I. No. 14-4338-P), p. 16.
2.Id. at 29-38.
3.Id. at 51-65.
4.Id. at 80-96.
5.Id. at 249.
6.Id. at 343-347.
7.Id. at 345.
8.Id. at 346.
9.Id. at 343-347.
10.Rollo (OCA I.P.I. No. 13-4103-P), pp. 1-2.
11. Id. at 3-6.
12. Id. at 83-86.
13. Id. at 246-258.
14. Id. at 251.
15. Id. at 254.
16. Id. at 255-257.
17. Id. at 246-258.
18. Id. at 343.
19. Id. at 343-344.
20. Id. at 346.
21. See Acebedo v. Arquero, 447 Phil. 76, 85 (2003).
22. See A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC and A.M. No. 03-06-13-SC.
23. Sec. 46.Classification of Offenses. — Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
xxx xxx xxx
B. The following grave offenses shall be punishable by suspension of six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year for the first offense and dismissal from the service for the second offense:
xxx xxx xxx
3. Disgraceful and immoral conduct[.]